The market for the luxury-goods industry is on the decline. Recent reports show that a higher unemployment rate, coupled with consumer fears, has decreased the amount of money the average household spends on both essential and nonessential items, but especially on nonessential items. Since luxury goods are, by nature, nonessential, this market will be the first to decrease in the present economic climate, and luxury retailers should refocus their attention to lower-priced markets.
The statement given by the text that luxury retailers should refocus their attention to lower priced markets and products is not backed up by sufficient proof that this will be a sufficient move. There are a couple of flaws in the text, specially regarding the size of the research, the possibility of behaviours from customers of high-ended products and in the affirmation that people would buy from a luxury retailers who changed to lower priced marked.
First, the text claims that recent reports show a lower spending in non essential items. There is, however, no reference of the size of this sample, and where it was done. Was this report done with million, thousands, hundreds of people? It could not be representative of the overall buyers population, since it could focus on only on a specific social class such as the middle class. Furthermore, given the small sample, this result might also not represent different locations. Given these arguments, it is not possible to affirm that there was a representative sample for all luxury retailers focus their attention to lower priced products.
Secondly, there is a statement saying that unenmployement rate is high. However, this might not be true for the very specific population who buys luxury products, specially considering that during crises the major employees affected by lay outs are usually the lower ended employees, and not the high management. With this in mind, we cannot conclude that there is a bad economic climate for the kind of social class who usually buys high end products.
Lastly, the text suggests that luxury retailers should refocus on other type of products, such as lower priced ones. Still, this does not take into account that people will buy from luxury brands even if they rebrand themselves. This comes up considering that people who usually buy lower priced products could just not think about buying from a hgiher priced brand. At the same time, customers who like luxury brands might enjoy the special feel of it. Consequentely, selling lower prices could not attract neither of these customers.
In resume, the arguments given by the author has flaws and are not sufficient to affirm that changing the luxury retailers strategy would result in satisfactory outcomes. The text could be improved by adding statistical data regarding the population from the recent report that it cites, say that unemployment rate is high even among people who spend on luxury items, and by showing that consumers would buy from a luxury retailer reframed as lower priced.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-12-16 | claudia12211 | 49 | view |
| 2019-09-29 | adamvg | 81 | view |
| 2019-08-13 | sdefried | 82 | view |
| 2019-06-14 | lulua0404 | 79 | view |
| 2015-10-27 | Prithvi Raj | 10 | view |
- Studying food ways – what foods people eat and how they produce, acquire, prepare, and consume them – is the best way to gain deep understanding of a culture 50
- Studying food ways – what foods people eat and how they produce, acquire, prepare, and consume them – is the best way to gain deep understanding of a culture 50
- The market for the luxury-goods industry is on the decline. Recent reports show that a higher unemployment rate, coupled with consumer fears, has decreased the amount of money the average household spends on both essential and nonessential items, but espe 49
- Studying food ways – what foods people eat and how they produce, acquire, prepare, and consume them – is the best way to gain deep understanding of a culture 50
- So long as they are aware of the dangers involved, adults should not be legally bound to use seat belts. 66
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 420 350
No. of Characters: 2083 1500
No. of Different Words: 194 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.527 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.96 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.532 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 149 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 93 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 73 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 49 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.333 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.909 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.611 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.328 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.548 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.071 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 411, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'retailer'?
Suggestion: retailer
...ion that people would buy from a luxury retailers who changed to lower priced marked. ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 199, Rule ID: NODT_DOZEN[1]
Message: Use simply: 'a million'.
Suggestion: a million
... it was done. Was this report done with million, thousands, hundreds of people? It coul...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 285, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'buyers'' or 'buyer's'?
Suggestion: buyers'; buyer's
...ld not be representative of the overall buyers population, since it could focus on onl...
^^^^^^
Line 17, column 114, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'retailers'' or 'retailer's'?
Suggestion: retailers'; retailer's
...ient to affirm that changing the luxury retailers strategy would result in satisfactory o...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, furthermore, however, if, lastly, regarding, second, secondly, so, still, kind of, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 22.0 13.6137724551 162% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 28.8173652695 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 54.0 55.5748502994 97% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2153.0 2260.96107784 95% => OK
No of words: 420.0 441.139720559 95% => OK
Chars per words: 5.12619047619 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52701905584 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61606323472 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 201.0 204.123752495 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.478571428571 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 648.9 705.55239521 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 65.0070271605 57.8364921388 112% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.611111111 119.503703932 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.3333333333 23.324526521 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.72222222222 5.70786347227 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 8.20758483034 12% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.125622475704 0.218282227539 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0464890312431 0.0743258471296 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0590968384547 0.0701772020484 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0812633691857 0.128457276422 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0473679076013 0.0628817314937 75% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 14.3799401198 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 48.3550499002 117% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.77 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.31 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 98.500998004 95% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.